User talk:HuskyHarlot

Archives: 1

Thoughts and Predictions on Gamergate

 * Fundamentally this is a war of attrition. Gamergate has far superior numbers which, given the nature of the war, guarantees victory. The longer anti-Gamergate forces continue to fight the longer that victory is delayed, but the greater their inevitable loss. How far into irrelevancy will publications like Kotaku and Polygon sink? What will be left of the "social justice" crowd when all is said and done? We shall see.

Comments
This is straight out of Umberto Eco's Ur Fascism checklist. The rest of the list sort of applies to this mentality, but those two are ringing loud and clear. Why do you feel this stupid war is one worth waging? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (frequently entirely imagined)Powerful enemies constantly conspire and control everything who are simultaneously are weak, few, and powerless.
 * The moral degradation of a decadent society doomed in the near future(unless they turn to the fascist ideology and repent).

First they came for those rowdy Social Justice Warriors, and I did not speak out because, seriously, fuck those overzealous moralists.

Then they came for the milder proponents of social justice, and I did not speak out because, meh, minorities here still have it way better than in Africa or something.

Then they came for the women, gays and blacks, and I did not speak out because I didn't belong to any of those groups.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to defend my rights and freedom, whose removal, as it turns out, I'd tacitly agreed to by rejecting social justice.

141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So you guys like the slippery slope argument now? Burkean (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing about Ur Fascism is that it shouldn't be confused with full on governmental fascism. It's an ideological soup that gives rise to Nazis and blackcoats; it's not all the horrible things those people actually did.  I don't imagine gamergate has the clout or organization to actually drag people to gas chambers.  But I do think they'd find a place supporting the kind of people who do.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wouldn't attribute that kind of power to them either. But I'd say they're the kind of people that'd be totally okay with that type of authoritarian oppression right until where it'd start to affect them personally. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not just the power. I think my subconscious desire to express contempt for them hurt my actual message.  They lack the specific organizational aims that the Nazis had.  They know their enemies (defined more by not agreeing with them than by actually being foes), but they lack an overarching structure that pushes them in the direction of acting on their vilification in a way more than lone-wolf death threats.  It's an odd mentality.  It's one you can understand working for survival in early tribal societies, but still very odd for the modern world.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll read this essay and respond. I may not be entirely objective as I thought Foucault's Pendulum was shit. Sarah (HH) 20:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✻ "OP" is not even wrong. The media and public opinion is heavily stacked against GamerGate. Journalists are paid for their job and controversy brings clicks. They cannot be worn out. Irrelevancy of Kotaku and Polygon, if true (no idea) has to do that the core gamer segment, to which these media traditionally catered, have alienated their core readership with this (here lies a lot of irony and fine print) – and “alienated” is a massive understatement. Accusations of fascism against GamerGate are ludicrous. It is a very elastic term that is used to capture whoever misbehaves the most. Thereby the term sponges up all sorts of othering and confirmation bias of the opponents. This questionable sauce is then smeared over anyone who disagrees with the social justice warriors in a gaming context. That is not say that there are no right wingers or maybe fascists among them too. Many things that can be said about GamerGate can be said about other online movements. Anti-GamerGaters use hasgtags, too, have their “safe spaces” and even more are prone to rally around thought leaders. Doxing happened in GamerGate, outside, was done by Anti-GamerGaters, and in all sorts of other communities. Etc. But I'll argue now that Social Justice Warriors are facist, using your list. I want to demonstrate two things. First, I believe there is an undercurrent. Second, it's easy to "bent" critera a bit around the corner to make them fit, so that they meet with confirmation bias (means, you have to be very careful what you do there). In that spirit, I present you this list.

1) The powerful enemy of the social justice warriors is the Teh Patriarchy™. An army of trolls conspires against them and people (the normal ones) secretly hate women, minorities and tiny cute kittens, but publicly say other things (hence SJW sniff for “dog-whistles”). Somehow, all these people coordinate behind everyone's backs. The white man (maybe Jewish?) is secretly pulling the strings. I'm polemical here, but you see it?

2) Social Justice Warriors are always concerned with the moral and righteous, and they appeal to authorities to tighten the grip more. “Everything is problematic” (Lacy Green, Anita Sarkeesian). Eco's second point explicitly mentions irrationalism, against the Enlightenment. And et voilà, SJWs are into postmodernism and social constructivism and such things. Enlightenment is this evil colonial white man stuff. Universities are “not about creating an intellectual space!” they're about “creating a home” (Yale incident a few days ago, over policing costumes!).

3) That could be the slacktivist point, the action for the action sake. Here you see the SJW busybodies declaring “safe spaces” and all their moral posturing and thought policing, organizing hashtags against false T-shirts, or – heck – playing Halloween costume police.

4) Did you read this point? Eco says, “Disagreement is Treason”. Where do we find this? “Safe Spaces”!

5) Fear of Difference. See Jonathan Haidt on Safe Spaces who describes the SJW mindset as being for “diversity in everything, except thought”. Exactly. Try to disagree on SJW issues with peers, and you'll see how this goes. Good luck. Plenty for evidence for that, too.

6) Appeal to Frustrated Class: does apply neither, as this is an economic point.

7) Eco says: “Who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies”. Social Justice Warriors sit in their safe spaces and console each over the evil unsafe world outside, namely, Teh Patriarchy™. The othering is extremely strong. SJWs know after one disagreement that you are a neocon, MRA, misogynist, right winger (and gamergater).

8) “The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.” compare to the statement above “Gamergate has far superior numbers which, given the nature of the war, guarantees victory. “ In fact, Social Justice Warriors always feel they are the underdog, even if all media, wikipedia, public opinion is on their side, Patreon dollars come flowing in, and their thought leaders are invited to google and UN, no, the enemy is still somehow more powerful.

9) Eco says here “life is permanent warfare”. Everything is problematic. You must point it all out. And they are called social justice warrior for a reason. The drama is endless that follows them around. Also, SJWs indeed are engaged in rhetorical warfare, not substance. You can say that GamerGaters also do “fight” on the internet, but where exactly is that codified into an ideology?

10) “Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism.” That's the elitism of belonging to an conciousness-raised group, that have “checked their privilege” compared to those who have not.

11) Here we have the martyrdom of the harassment victims the very own brand of social justice warrior “cult of heroism” that is, according to Eco “strictly linked with the cult of death.” It's exactly the harassment that came over Sarkeesian or Watson that made them famous and leaders. “The Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death” which is what SJWs always emphasize how they are being harassed and ultimately “silenced”. Does it get uncanny yet?

12) “Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters”. But of course fascists were ultra masculine and has a disdain for women. If we believe the anti-GamerGate narrative then “disdain for women” applies (what I don't believe is true, but we go currently with what each side says). However, “sexual matters” are the key and cornerstone of everything among SJWs. It must be policed, regulated, called out, and so forth.

13) “For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will” that would be identity politics, critical race theory and standpoint theory. SJWs are the ones who always point out skin colours, or sexes, i.e. human groups and claim there exist a mythical “lived experience” for each, similar to the Common Will.

14) Newspeak. Oh, that's painful isn't it. All the redefinitions of words, from racism (becomes prejudice+power, instead of discrimination based on ethnic traits) to intersectionality, “safe spaces”, cis-het, postmodernist confusions of what is “man” or “woman”, doubled by sex and gender (are these things biology? Social construction? Etc) all the thought terminating clichés they use, i.e. whitesplaining, mansplaining…


 * ✻ And as a little bonus on top. The fascists were busy with art criticism and persuaded the public that some art is worthless smut, and did so by arranging it out of context and in a propagandistic manner to bring their point across. Hmm… who did that?. That was a fun exercise, with a sprinkle of polemics. But when you can do it, I can do it as well, right? I have plenty of other reasons why I think Social Justice Warriors have a fascist thing going on. In particular their strong authoritarianism, no-platforming, as well as their idea, book, and people removing habits. Aneris ✻ (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Damn, I like this guy! Just the kind of critical thinking RW appreciates. Welcome Aneris. Sarah (HH) 22:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You're demented. Plutoniumboss (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"new-user-who-only-edits-pages-ryulong-also-edits"
I'm guessing you didn't actually check my contributions before making that accusation, nor did you stop and think that, with how many shitfests Ryulong gets embroiled in, that appellation would apply to roughly half the site. Would you like to retract that incredibly worthless accusation?KrytenKoro (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * " that appellation would apply to roughly half the site." .....he's got me there. Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Retracted. I shouldn't have made it in the first place. Apologies it didn't come sooner. – Sarah (HH) 19:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Sysop
Sucked in loser, you've been demoted. Read this and suffer for your crimes. Tielec01 (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OMG I have never been an administrator before on anything. Thank you Tielec01. I vow not to abuse these god-like powers. Sarah (HH) 03:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Formatting
People often fix other post's formatting. Get over it. And stop calling Kitsu Ryulong -- it adds nothing and merely seeks to slur Kitsu in the way that you complain that Kitsu slurs you. 04:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not broken, it was just not to their liking. The correction is not my objection - the edit warring over the formatting of my post, then blocking, is my objection. Sarah (HH) 04:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Question for the talk page watchers (if such things exist)
I accidentally marked this edit as patrolled. I thought I was clicking next. I don't know what test to follow for "mark as patrolled" so I don't know if this comment qualifies. – Sarah (HH) 07:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi
Please refrain from lecturing others about creating drama or mentioning Ryu. Coz it makes you look like a hypocrite since we all know you both love drama and obsess about Ryu. kthnxbai! Typhoon (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look through my edits you'll find I haven't once started a coop case (whereas Kitsunelaine has started half a dozen? A dozen?) and since his ban, I haven't once brought up Ryulong. I've commented when others mention him, just like I comment when others bring coop cases, but I haven't instigated either. I did my best a year ago (or however long it was) to protect RW from Ryulong - I said his ban was inevitable (I was right) and the longer he stayed the more problems he'd cause (right again, we're still dealing with the fallout.) It's like finding an arsonist and a fireman at a fire and blaming them equally for the fire. I say no. – Sarah (HH) 22:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again! I've noticed that you once gain can't stop bringing up Ryulong (hell, you can't even have an userpage that isn't referencing him, is this a fetish of yours)? Also, it's now obvious that you've decided to chase Kitsu away from RW. Drama isn't measured by who starts Coop cases, it's measured by the crazy assholes who edit only talkpages where they get into arguments with people. And in the latest tempest in a teapot you're just as guilty as your newest target of obsession, Kitsu. Thank you for reading! Typhoon (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Vexing moral dilemma. Either I could let the false claim stand (that I'd accomplished nothing) or violate my self-imposed restriction and mention Ryulong. Lose/lose. I believe I chose the smaller loss. The only silver lining is that since I can no longer claim never to have brought up Ryulong in conversation I have no reason not to. – Sarah (HH) 19:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I might as well ask you
How alarmed should I be by this? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:40, 14 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * Now you done it. You're on the list! Gamergate won't quit until 142․124․55․236 is removed from IPv4 address allocation. – Sarah (HH) 04:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @142 Should we allow anti-semitic images on the user's userpage?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 04:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good question. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:53, 14 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * Depends on circumstance. I'm a bit wary about hate speech laws, because those same restrictions, errr, restrict you from mocking hate speech.  Like a Confederate Swastika would be banned. CorruptUser (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @CU I hate free speech restrictions, but we aren't a government and we don't have to give a platform to hate speech.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 05:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * While I sometimes offend intentionally that was not my goal here. Found the image in the gallery, needed an image that implied action, figured y'all uploaded it not me. : would it please you if I edited the caricature to be less semitic? – Sarah (HH) 05:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Mainly, I wanted to know the intent since the artist who made that is a well know Neo-Nazi and his art is regular used on 4chan.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 05:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Artist" LOL. The actor here is Gamergate so if it were anti-semetic it's be against Gamergate and I'm Gamergate - doesn't make sense. I'll try my hand at editing assuming that doesn't violate copyright? Is RW prissy about that like WP? – Sarah (HH) 05:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Actor"? Also, what I mean by "art" is the picture of a stereotypical Jew who is rubbing his hands. I would be legitametly surprised if you haven't seen that picture before.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 05:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand - it was a dig at the quality of his art. It's the "in progress" column so I needed an "in progress" image, action, Gamergate actions. Anyway, I think I've made my intent clear so you all decide and me know. I'm good w/whatever but if it's "remove" please let me know if I can (legally) edit the image to be less offensive. – Sarah (HH) 05:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am a little tired. Anyways, idc, but if someone wants you to remove then I would probably do that. Since I don't see any objections you might as well keep it up.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 05:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. Alright, I edited it to be less offensive, hopefully I succeeded! – Sarah (HH) 06:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (EC) Well, on that matter, I think banning swastikas is silly. It's just a symbol (and not exclusively associated with the Nazis either). Instead of focusing on the superficial, go for the core issue and outlaw racial hatred. Also, some would use that confederate swastika unironically, you know. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:11, 14 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * @Owlman, oh I know we don't have to tolerate anything for any length of time. But I'm generally against zero tolerance, one size fits all rules when there can be legitimate reasons to do something.  So it should be on a case by case basis. CorruptUser (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you which is why I asked HH what their intent was.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 05:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Arr, matey!
I wrote to ya! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Happy Merchant
Just... Why? 14:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)